Why Is Evil Being Good So Important To Some People...


Lost Omens Campaign Setting General Discussion

551 to 600 of 904 << first < prev | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | next > last >>

Perhaps interestingly, and more importantly, teaching them that hurting, oppressing, and killing is wrong likewise prevents asinine stuff like throwing fireball spells in town is something you should avoid doing, even though it doesn't have the [Evil] tag.

Make them more likely to be people who aren't going to club a sorcerer over the head because they used infernal healing to heal little Tina's dogbite, but more likely to react harshly when the bard uses suggestion to get big Jeb to hand over his wallet.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

This whole thing gave me an idea for a campaign about a conflict between hell and heaven, where hell is realistic, pragmatic and generally "good", while heaven are the actual antagonists, conservative to the absurd and using arguments like " but we are good, we can't do anything bad or wrong , we even detect as such" while slaughtering thousands of innocents.

Meanwhile hell is building hospitals and pushing education on the material plane because they want more innovative mages improving everyone's lives. Demons go to taverns and theatres too, you know, and enjoy a good play as much as the next commoner.

Guess something positive came out of this, at least.


Klara Meison wrote:

This whole thing gave me an idea for a campaign about a conflict between hell and heaven, where hell is realistic, pragmatic and generally "good", while heaven are the actual antagonists, conservative to the absurd and using arguments like " but we are good, we can't do anything bad or wrong , we even detect as such" while slaughtering thousands of innocents.

Meanwhile hell is building hospitals and pushing education on the material plane because they want more innovative mages improving everyone's lives. Demons go to taverns and theatres too, you know, and enjoy a good play as much as the next commoner.

Guess something positive came out of this, at least.

This loosely reminds of some stuff from the Angel Sanctuary manga, which is about (in a part) an archangel that rebels against heaven to aid demons because she cannot stand the level of arrogance and corruption present in heaven and their oppression of demons (some of which aren't particularly dangerous either).


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Klara Meison wrote:
KitsuneSoup wrote:
Klara Meison wrote:
You seemed to miss the point. You enter a room, and see a person. You cast detect evil, and it returns " yes, evil ". Is the person actually evil or just under a spell making him detect as such? If your testing equipment is 100% accurate, there is 0% chance it is giving you a false reading, so the person is definitely evil. Except, obviously, that is not true.

No, I understood your point perfectly. There is still nothing wrong with the testing equipment. "If I can fool the equipment, then the equipment is flawed" is not correct. If I put a piece of uranium inside a Geiger counter, the equipment still works fine, even though it's always detecting radiation.

... No it does not? That Geiger counter is completely useless for any measurements now. That is literally the opposite of "works fine". By this logic titanic " worked fine " after it was hit by an iceberg, it's just that it sank.

...Well, no. Exposing the gieger counter to a known source of radiation, like say a piece of Uranium, is part of the how it's supposed to be used. You've just source checked your instrument.


Squeakmaan wrote:
Klara Meison wrote:
KitsuneSoup wrote:
Klara Meison wrote:
You seemed to miss the point. You enter a room, and see a person. You cast detect evil, and it returns " yes, evil ". Is the person actually evil or just under a spell making him detect as such? If your testing equipment is 100% accurate, there is 0% chance it is giving you a false reading, so the person is definitely evil. Except, obviously, that is not true.

No, I understood your point perfectly. There is still nothing wrong with the testing equipment. "If I can fool the equipment, then the equipment is flawed" is not correct. If I put a piece of uranium inside a Geiger counter, the equipment still works fine, even though it's always detecting radiation.

... No it does not? That Geiger counter is completely useless for any measurements now. That is literally the opposite of "works fine". By this logic titanic " worked fine " after it was hit by an iceberg, it's just that it sank.
...Well, no. Exposing the gieger counter to a known source of radiation, like say a piece of Uranium, is part of the how it's supposed to be used. You've just source checked your instrument.

Not what was meant, as far as I understand. You don't leave a known source of radiation inside the Geiger counter after you have calibrated it, or else it will just always detect that amount of radiation. You take it out.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Whether or not it detects as evil is moot, however. At that point, the paladin isn't detecting evil, she's detecting orange. Since, as Ashiel has been pointing out for days now, if your good v. evil comes down to acts that have nothing to do with cruelty or morality like "You cast this spell that is Bad Because My Detect Spell Says So", it's not really a good v. evil anyone cares about.

It's just another tick in your Orange meter. Careful—if you're too Orange, those weird psychopomps send you off to Hell!

Trogdar wrote:

So, what, boiling people alive in there skin is fine, just don't give a demons fast healing to a child or your boned?

How is that not the most patently absurd outcome?

You are wrong, entirely, and I will tell you why. God, you're going to be so ashamed when you realize how wrong you've been the whole time. "Kobold Cleaver DESTROYS infernal healing-loving monster", will be the headline on the clickbait ad for the article depicting the events to follow.

It's a devil's fast healing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Klara Meison wrote:
Baker and the thief, effectively, have two different ethical systems, because their utility functions likely differ. So what's your point? They are both correct in their own ethical systems. <snip> I've never said utilitarianism creates happy communities by default or whatever it is you think I have said, but it is a consistent ethical system <snip>

So when Valjean catches a break in life and is able one day to start his own bakery to make a living, did he just change eithical systems?

Is that "consistent"?

Because if that is what counts as ethics? Well, let's just say I never have and never will "do something wrong". I'm golden! LOL!


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
I am glad we can have this conversation on the morality issues presented by the Star Wars prequel trilogy. As a follow-up question, what type of action was it when the Jedi rescued Jar-Jar Binks from being crushed in the first movie?

That action was a failure of prescience. Seems like Qui-Gon also failed his will save. Maybe the two are related.

Back to the OP.

Because RPing the equivalent of the main characters in a Tarantino movie can only be done so many times before you get bored. Typically no later than the second go-around.


We can jump on that simplification train all day. "Well, RPing the equivalent of the main characters in a Disney movie can only be done . . ."

Good, evil and neutral characters are all of equally complex and varied fields. I mean, Evil is arguably the most varied, since Evil places no limits on what you can do, but they all provide plenty of diversity.

I have never seen a Tarantino movie, though, so I may be misunderstanding you. :P


Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Whether or not it detects as evil is moot, however. At that point, the paladin isn't detecting evil, she's detecting orange. Since, as Ashiel has been pointing out for days now, if your good v. evil comes down to acts that have nothing to do with cruelty or morality like "You cast this spell that is Bad Because My Detect Spell Says So", it's not really a good v. evil anyone cares about.

It's just another tick in your Orange meter. Careful—if you're too Orange, those weird psychopomps send you off to Hell!

Trogdar wrote:

So, what, boiling people alive in there skin is fine, just don't give a demons fast healing to a child or your boned?

How is that not the most patently absurd outcome?

You are wrong, entirely, and I will tell you why. God, you're going to be so ashamed when you realize how wrong you've been the whole time. "Kobold Cleaver DESTROYS infernal healing-loving monster", will be the headline on the clickbait ad for the article depicting the events to follow.

It's a devil's fast healing.

Well, yes, but Ashiel was arguing that point by herself already, so I decided to approach the topic from another direction(what's the point in two people saying pretty much the same thing?). Not only will paladin detect something that is pretty much unrelated to ethics, she wouldn't even be sure if what she detected is correct. I find that a little funny.

Quark Blast wrote:
Klara Meison wrote:
Baker and the thief, effectively, have two different ethical systems, because their utility functions likely differ. So what's your point? They are both correct in their own ethical systems. <snip> I've never said utilitarianism creates happy communities by default or whatever it is you think I have said, but it is a consistent ethical system <snip>

So when Valjean catches a break in life and is able one day to start his own bakery to make a living, did he just change eithical systems?

Is that "consistent"?

Because if that is what counts as ethics? Well, let's just say I never have and never will "do something wrong". I'm golden! LOL!

... Please at least skim the Wikipedia page about utilitarianism before saying things about it. Otherwise you might end up saying something quite embarrassing.


I don't get moralism, but I've always preferred congers, myself.


Klara Meison wrote:
... Please at least skim the Wikipedia page about utilitarianism before saying things about it. Otherwise you might end up saying something quite embarrassing.

Wasn't talking about utilitarianism per se. Was referring to your post.

Talk about saying something embarrassing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hey, now. Let's all stay cool cats here.


Klara Meison wrote:


Well, yes, but Ashiel was arguing that point by herself already, so I decided to approach the topic from another direction(what's the point in two people saying pretty much the same thing?). Not only will paladin detect something that is pretty much unrelated to ethics, she wouldn't even be sure if what she detected is correct. I find that a little funny.

OTOH, if the paladin doesn't fall, it wasn't evil. If a smite works on it, it is. (Though it might or might not be hard to tell if smite actually worked.)


I believe it was a Standard action to save Jar-Jar. Maybe a Full-round.


phantom1592 wrote:

I think PART of the reason... is that not everyone plays in 'Golarion.' Threads like this pop up in 'Pathfinder RPG/General Discussion' when they should be in 'Pathfinder Setting General discussion'... The Golarion specific place...

That said, I think you're probably right about "Is it a personal preference? For example, do people rebel against it because they want to be like that guy/gal in that book/movie/show and they see him/her as good and therefor don't like the idea of the game's rules indicating that the character would be evil in the scope of the definition within Golarion?"

There has always been a push to play 'the anti-hero' and characters like Wolverine, Punisher, Dexter do some truly horrific things that would have ZERO acceptability in 'real world'. In their dark places, people admire these kind of characters... but don't like it when people point just how... EVIL that is.

As for Evil vs. Dishonorable... THAT can have some pretty significant game mechanics tied to it. So it's always best to hash that out with DM's before play start.

Their is also the issue that even a Paladin would be a horrifying genocidal serial killer in the real world, or rather if their actions where measured by our standards, they ARE basically Conquistadors after all :p. So is saying 'murdering all of those beings because Pala sense tingle is 'good', but killing those things is 'evil' even tho the actions they take are just as harmful (for instance killing orcs, as opposed to good aligned fey, one is tormenting the villagers because it's fun to drive people insane, the other is an evil race.) I cannot see the difference between them, they are both monsters in my eyes, so what gets good and evil is shown ot be arbitrary, in Golarion we get the added conflict of Cheliax being the most believable nation in the setting (admittedly I do not know to much outside the inner sea), as in it actually makes sense that it has not disintegrated into civil war of been crushed by some one far less soft, it acts like a Medieval nation actually did.

So yea, give the Punisher sense evil and he is a Pathfinder Grey Paladin, at least how some of them have been described in story. So to summarise: I do not see some of what the setting regards as 'good' to be anything more than genocidal, and some of what seems evil as completely arbitrary .


Rob Godfrey wrote:

Their is also the issue that even a Paladin would be a horrifying genocidal serial killer in the real world, or rather if their actions where measured by our standards, they ARE basically Conquistadors after all :p. So is saying 'murdering all of those beings because Pala sense tingle is 'good', but killing those things is 'evil' even tho the actions they take are just as harmful (for instance killing orcs, as opposed to good aligned fey, one is tormenting the villagers because it's fun to drive people insane, the other is an evil race.) I cannot see the difference between them, they are both monsters in my eyes, so what gets good and evil is shown ot be arbitrary, in Golarion we get the added conflict of Cheliax being the most believable nation in the setting (admittedly I do not know to much outside the inner sea), as in it actually makes sense that it has not disintegrated into civil war of been crushed by some one far less soft, it acts like a Medieval nation actually did.

So yea, give the Punisher sense evil and he is a Pathfinder Grey Paladin, at least how some of them have been described in story. So to summarise: I do not see some of what the setting regards as 'good' to be anything more than genocidal, and some of what seems evil as completely arbitrary.

Of course, that only works if the paladin actually does go around arbitrarily killing anything that's evil, which would be a quick path to falling in any game I run.


thejeff wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:

Their is also the issue that even a Paladin would be a horrifying genocidal serial killer in the real world, or rather if their actions where measured by our standards, they ARE basically Conquistadors after all :p. So is saying 'murdering all of those beings because Pala sense tingle is 'good', but killing those things is 'evil' even tho the actions they take are just as harmful (for instance killing orcs, as opposed to good aligned fey, one is tormenting the villagers because it's fun to drive people insane, the other is an evil race.) I cannot see the difference between them, they are both monsters in my eyes, so what gets good and evil is shown ot be arbitrary, in Golarion we get the added conflict of Cheliax being the most believable nation in the setting (admittedly I do not know to much outside the inner sea), as in it actually makes sense that it has not disintegrated into civil war of been crushed by some one far less soft, it acts like a Medieval nation actually did.

So yea, give the Punisher sense evil and he is a Pathfinder Grey Paladin, at least how some of them have been described in story. So to summarise: I do not see some of what the setting regards as 'good' to be anything more than genocidal, and some of what seems evil as completely arbitrary.

Of course, that only works if the paladin actually does go around arbitrarily killing anything that's evil, which would be a quick path to falling in any game I run.

'evil' pretty humanoids tend to make it a question, anything ugly or tribal? You have to explain, in system who NOT killing them isn't evil..yea


thejeff wrote:
Klara Meison wrote:


Well, yes, but Ashiel was arguing that point by herself already, so I decided to approach the topic from another direction(what's the point in two people saying pretty much the same thing?). Not only will paladin detect something that is pretty much unrelated to ethics, she wouldn't even be sure if what she detected is correct. I find that a little funny.

OTOH, if the paladin doesn't fall, it wasn't evil. If a smite works on it, it is. (Though it might or might not be hard to tell if smite actually worked.)

Then again, there is angelskin, which gives a 20% chance that smite won't work)


Rob Godfrey wrote:
Cheliax being the most believable nation in the setting (admittedly I do not know to much outside the inner sea), as in it actually makes sense that it has not disintegrated into civil war of been crushed by some...

You do know that Cheliax is going to fall soon if indications of Hell's Rebels and it's follow up are any indication.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Cheliax being the most believable nation in the setting (admittedly I do not know to much outside the inner sea), as in it actually makes sense that it has not disintegrated into civil war of been crushed by some...
You do know that Cheliax is going to fall soon if indications of Hell's Rebels and it's follow up are any indication.

it's already started happening in my games.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Cheliax was doomed the moment someone thought it was a good idea to use a pit fiend to power their fireplace.

Also, wtf? It's impossible to get a pit fiend onto the material plane without either a super high level diabolist, or a gate spell, so do you march your way into Hell and capture a lord of hell so you can put him in your basement?

Yeah, Cheliax was doomed.


Well, if a pit fiend can be used as a water level sensor in a dam (and someone actually thinks this is a better idea than overflow hatches), they are handy beasts.


Ah but now we have Celestial Healing, so Infernal Healing is no longer a morality issue for arcane casters. Yay for a simple spell change that any GM could do to become official! For those of who care about rules, this debate is informing. For those of us who don't care about what a silly book says about alignment for one archetype that we already had in 3.5's Heroes of Horror via a prestige class, we frankly don't care. There are all sorts of simple moral choices that can be used to make things like summoning demons or animating undead a good act. Divine casters not being able to cast spells of opposite alignment to their ethos makes perfect sense. They're channeling and being influenced by a greater power to make a decision. Arcane casters have more freedom of will, but also have a greater tendency to want to use magic for evil ends given your typical BBEG (especially since it's almost been a caster for every AP at this point as the BBEG). However, summoning a demon to go eat your evil enemy in combat, and then it disappears after several rounds? Whoopity do. Calling up a demon via planar binding to gather sacrifices that haven't pledged their lives to a cause so you can become more powerful? Evil act.

And let's face it, Karzoug used the pit fiends because he could and it was a cool use of magic to raise and lower a spillway via devil or life power. Not because it was a great engineering idea.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
stormcrow27 wrote:

Ah but now we have Celestial Healing, so Infernal Healing is no longer a morality issue for arcane casters. Yay for a simple spell change that any GM could do to become official! For those of who care about rules, this debate is informing. For those of us who don't care about what a silly book says about alignment for one archetype that we already had in 3.5's Heroes of Horror via a prestige class, we frankly don't care. There are all sorts of simple moral choices that can be used to make things like summoning demons or animating undead a good act. Divine casters not being able to cast spells of opposite alignment to their ethos makes perfect sense. They're channeling and being influenced by a greater power to make a decision. Arcane casters have more freedom of will, but also have a greater tendency to want to use magic for evil ends given your typical BBEG (especially since it's almost been a caster for every AP at this point as the BBEG). However, summoning a demon to go eat your evil enemy in combat, and then it disappears after several rounds? Whoopity do. Calling up a demon via planar binding to gather sacrifices that haven't pledged their lives to a cause so you can become more powerful? Evil act.

And let's face it, Karzoug used the pit fiends because he could and it was a cool use of magic to raise and lower a spillway via devil or life power. Not because it was a great engineering idea.

In fairness, Celestial Healing is flat inferior to Infernal Healing and cure light wounds. Infernal healing heals 10 hp. Cure Light Wounds heals 1-8+1-5. Celestial Healing heals 10 hp... At caster level 20.

I morally object to bad spells :p.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

But you can't. If you morally object to bad spells, then you're good. If you morally object to good spells, you're bad. But if you use both then you're good and bad and neutral and then confused.

Sure, that's because the powers of evil set that up so you feel more inclined to da EVILZ! Good has it harder, hence why Celestial Healing only heals 1 hp per every 2 levels a round. Cure light wounds gets used by either side, so it's a neutral spell.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Was this also created by Asmodeus?
Because that is a terrible spell.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
dragonhunterq wrote:

Was this also created by Asmodeus?

Because that is a terrible spell.

No, no, that was created by good people that like martyrdom. See, you only get the slower healing because good wants some suffering in return for its benefits. It helps you grow more appreciative of life if your healing is less then the evil powers, so you become closer to good.

Shadow Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.

...


3 people marked this as a favorite.
stormcrow27 wrote:

But you can't. If you morally object to bad spells, then you're good. If you morally object to good spells, you're bad. But if you use both then you're good and bad and neutral and then confused.

Sure, that's because the powers of evil set that up so you feel more inclined to da EVILZ! Good has it harder, hence why Celestial Healing only heals 1 hp per every 2 levels a round. Cure light wounds gets used by either side, so it's a neutral spell.

But can I be so good at being bad I end up neutral? And if I'm neutral, what happens if I shift gears?

Now I'm Lawful Racecar.

My god, it's happening.


stormcrow27 wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:

Was this also created by Asmodeus?

Because that is a terrible spell.
No, no, that was created by good people that like martyrdom. See, you only get the slower healing because good wants some suffering in return for its benefits. It helps you grow more appreciative of life if your healing is less then the evil powers, so you become closer to good.

No, it is a terrible spell, poorly designed, and added more-or-less as a joke. Were I an editor I would have thrown the book at the writer of that one and told him to re-write it.


KitsuneSoup wrote:


  • There is an interesting ethical question in this: A woman suddenly manifests Force Lightning, and[/list]...
  • In the mythos of the game world, the woman in question is evoking her Force powers from rage, as rage is the requisite emotion to evoke Force Lightning.

    She essentially is a Dark Side caster from the get go, and is destined to an early tragic flameout.

    IF Force Lighting is the only available force power, than that means that the Force itself in that world is wholly twisted into the dark side, and force users should either be hunted down as the dangerous burnouts they will become or some how prevented from using their powers.


    Remember people... you can 1. sacrifice your child's mother to 2. set off a terrible ritual with 3. the intention of committing genocide; and still be a good person, despite the evil act. Maybe even more good for it. Just ask one Harry Dresden. The "Good" a lot of people here are arguing for is dumb. And many of us believe that pretending good is ignorant and foolish is kind of insulting to "Good".


    Anzyr wrote:
    Remember people... you can 1. sacrifice your child's mother to 2. set off a terrible ritual with 3. the intention of committing genocide; and still be a good person, despite the evil act. Maybe even more good for it. Just ask one Harry Dresden. The "Good" a lot of people here are arguing for is dumb. And many of us believe that pretending good is ignorant and foolish is kind of insulting to "Good".

    You don't understand Harry Dresden.

    He never claimed what he did was good. We are also seeing that what he did actually may have made the situation in the world a lot worse. Even Harry admits that, though he didn't see another option, as, if he didn't then they were both going to die anyway and the only way to stop the big bad evil ENTIRE POPULATION OF RED COURT VAMPIRES was there. If he didn't then he dies, she dies, his daughter dies, and a lot worse happens.

    Make no mistake though, even in the Dresden-verse what he did was NOT good and he carries the scars from it and there is a darkness in him and he's well aware of it.


    HWalsh wrote:
    Anzyr wrote:
    Remember people... you can 1. sacrifice your child's mother to 2. set off a terrible ritual with 3. the intention of committing genocide; and still be a good person, despite the evil act. Maybe even more good for it. Just ask one Harry Dresden. The "Good" a lot of people here are arguing for is dumb. And many of us believe that pretending good is ignorant and foolish is kind of insulting to "Good".

    You don't understand Harry Dresden.

    He never claimed what he did was good. We are also seeing that what he did actually may have made the situation in the world a lot worse. Even Harry admits that, though he didn't see another option, as, if he didn't then they were both going to die anyway and the only way to stop the big bad evil ENTIRE POPULATION OF RED COURT VAMPIRES was there. If he didn't then he dies, she dies, his daughter dies, and a lot worse happens.

    Make no mistake though, even in the Dresden-verse what he did was NOT good and he carries the scars from it and there is a darkness in him and he's well aware of it.

    Doing it *was* Good though. Not doing it would have incredibly Evil not to mention selfish. Good is all about personal sacrifice and what is more valuable then one's values? A person's values are certainly worth more then something as simple as their life. To sacrifice one's values, their purpose, their cause for Good is the highest Good, even if those values are Good values.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Anzyr wrote:


    Doing it *was* good though. Good is all about personal sacrifice and what is more valuable then one's values? A persona's values are certainly worth more then something as simple as their life. To sacrifice one's values, their purpose, their cause for Good is the highest Good, even if those values are Good values.

    Not at all.

    There is no such thing as the "greater good" or the "highest good."

    There is good and there is evil. Harry knew what he was becoming. He knew those sacrifices he was making. Between doing that and potentially making the situation worse (the destruction of the Red Court Vampires put the world in a more dangerous situation).

    Then there is the lesson from later books, the lesson you missed, about goodness and purity being all-important and all powerful.

    Karen Murphy destroyed the holy sword. That which was once Excalibur. Why? She acted out of the greater good. She was going to kill a surrendered enemy, Nicodemus, who was only surrendering to manipulate her into doing it. She cost the forces of Good™ one of their most powerful weapons because she did as you said.

    Harry Dresden, in killing the Red Court, handed over control of the forces of Evil in the world to the Black Council. He didn't know he was doing it, but he did the work of the Black Council for him. He made evil much stronger ultimately in his efforts to act in the "Greater Good."

    One of the biggest lessons of those books is that when you sacrifice your morals it is ALWAYS a bad thing. Harry has won, many times, because he has RESISTED that urge. Ultimately resisting those urges is what is going to save everything.

    So what did Harry accomplish?

    He saved himself, he saved his daughter, he made the real big bads, the Black Council, even more powerful than they ever were. He caused the death of the Red Court, but he also caused the deaths of millions on top of millions more mortals in the battles that happened because of the power vacuum that he created.

    To put it simply:

    There is no greater good. There is no greatest good. There are just a bunch of lies we tell ourselves in order to feel better when we do something wrong.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Anzyr wrote:
    HWalsh wrote:
    Anzyr wrote:
    Remember people... you can 1. sacrifice your child's mother to 2. set off a terrible ritual with 3. the intention of committing genocide; and still be a good person, despite the evil act. Maybe even more good for it. Just ask one Harry Dresden. The "Good" a lot of people here are arguing for is dumb. And many of us believe that pretending good is ignorant and foolish is kind of insulting to "Good".

    You don't understand Harry Dresden.

    He never claimed what he did was good. We are also seeing that what he did actually may have made the situation in the world a lot worse. Even Harry admits that, though he didn't see another option, as, if he didn't then they were both going to die anyway and the only way to stop the big bad evil ENTIRE POPULATION OF RED COURT VAMPIRES was there. If he didn't then he dies, she dies, his daughter dies, and a lot worse happens.

    Make no mistake though, even in the Dresden-verse what he did was NOT good and he carries the scars from it and there is a darkness in him and he's well aware of it.

    Doing it *was* Good though. Not doing it would have incredibly Evil not to mention selfish. Good is all about personal sacrifice and what is more valuable then one's values? A person's values are certainly worth more then something as simple as their life. To sacrifice one's values, their purpose, their cause for Good is the highest Good, even if those values are Good values.

    Is this the "To be good you have to do evil" argument?

    Cause I ain't buying that one.


    thejeff wrote:

    Is this the "To be good you have to do evil" argument?

    Cause I ain't buying that one.

    And you shouldn't.

    If you have to do evil to do good then you are tainting those acts of good. There are lines, when those lines are crossed you can't go back. What good is a hero, who ceases to be good in his efforts to fight evil. It only removes a hero, and while it removes one villain, it adds the former hero to those ranks so it is a 0 sum game.


    HWalsh wrote:
    thejeff wrote:

    Is this the "To be good you have to do evil" argument?

    Cause I ain't buying that one.

    And you shouldn't.

    If you have to do evil to do good then you are tainting those acts of good. There are lines, when those lines are crossed you can't go back. What good is a hero, who ceases to be good in his efforts to fight evil. It only removes a hero, and while it removes one villain, it adds the former hero to those ranks so it is a 0 sum game.

    And if you lose because you were not willing to sacrifice your values, then Evil wins. Losing while keeping one's principles is still losing and if you could have done Good by sacrificing your principles then your choice to keep them is selfish and directly beneficial to Evil, which is decidedly not Good.


    Anzyr wrote:
    HWalsh wrote:
    thejeff wrote:

    Is this the "To be good you have to do evil" argument?

    Cause I ain't buying that one.

    And you shouldn't.

    If you have to do evil to do good then you are tainting those acts of good. There are lines, when those lines are crossed you can't go back. What good is a hero, who ceases to be good in his efforts to fight evil. It only removes a hero, and while it removes one villain, it adds the former hero to those ranks so it is a 0 sum game.

    And if you lose because you were not willing to sacrifice your values, then Evil wins. Losing while keeping one's principles is still losing and if you could have done Good by sacrificing your principles then your choice to keep them is selfish and directly beneficial to Evil, which is decidedly not Good.

    No. You don't understand.

    When you sacrifice your values YOU are no longer good. So good didn't defeat evil. Evil didn't lose. Evil beat other evil and a source of good was destroyed.


    Evil beat evil and a source of good is destroyed...but if that new evil goes on to beat all the other evils and continues doing all the things that he was doing when he was a good guy, is it really a loss in the grand scheme?

    That's the whole point. The good character made a heroic sacrifice in compromising his morals for the greater good. He carries that guilt, and it hurts him because he's a good man who did a bad thing for a good reason. It's a personal sacrifice, but personal sacrifices are what make good people good.

    He's not responsible for the power vacuum made by destroying the direct evil any more than a character who kills the BBEG is responsible for the infighting that results from the head of the snake being cut off. The deaths of people who insist on killing each other are not on his hands, whether or not he created the situation that made such fighting necessary.

    No, when Harry really fell was when he made the pact with Mab. It was a selfish act that he KNEW nothing good would come of, but he did it anyway out of desire to stave off helplessness and save his child, knowing he actually WOULD become a force for evil if he survived.

    That's the thin line of intent there. The difference between a Paladin making the hard choice and giving up his powers (falling) to save others (say by using dishonorable means to remove a threat. Consider a villain whose only weakness is poison as an example) and the Paladin falling HARD and becoming an Anti-Paladin (slaughtering a baby and drinking its blood to increase his power to stop the coming threat).


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Killing a villain is not necessarily a loss for evil as such. There will be others clawing their way to the top of the pile. Some villains actually hold back the darkness through inefficiency. For a RL example, the allies decided in 1944 not to try to assassinate Hitler for this very reason.

    But all of this misses the point: You don't do good by doing evil. You can't ignore the means you use. Waterboarding people IS EVIL. If you use evil means to get there, the Higher Goal you seek will be tainted by that. And if you're discussing GMing for a paladin character, you need to stop being a jerk by putting them in situations that can't be won by your judgements.

    Grand Lodge

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
    HWalsh wrote:
    When you sacrifice your values YOU are no longer good.

    What if Evil sacrifices its values. Is that good?


    TriOmegaZero wrote:
    HWalsh wrote:
    When you sacrifice your values YOU are no longer good.
    What if Evil sacrifices its values. Is that good?

    Not always.

    A Lawful Evil character who loses an honorable duel and then tries to backstabbing the hero under the guise of congratulating him is still evil.

    However a father who had walked a path of evil, following a code designed to only gain himmore and more power who sacrifices his life and power to save his son is quite good.


    4 people marked this as a favorite.
    Sundakan wrote:
    Evil beat evil and a source of good is destroyed...but if that new evil goes on to beat all the other evils and continues doing all the things that he was doing when he was a good guy, is it really a loss in the grand scheme?

    It is a tragic loss for the side of Blue. Orange gains a new pawn.


    HWalsh wrote:
    Karen Murphy destroyed the holy sword. That which was once Excalibur. Why? She acted out of the greater good. She was going to kill a surrendered enemy, Nicodemus, who was only surrendering to manipulate her into doing it. She cost the forces of Good™ one of their most powerful weapons because she did as you said.

    Actually, the Sword she destroyed was implied to be Kusanagi. Excalibur is still whole.

    And it doesn't matter that it got destroyed because it later got turned into a Holy lightsaber anyway, which was what God intended all along. Maybe. Probably. Who knows? Point is, by destroying that weapon, Karrin Murphy actually made it stronger. It took an insane series of coincidences for that powerup to occur.

    But then again, insane coincidences are implied to be the work of God, who may or may not exist, and if he does is totally cool loaning magic swords to Atheists who fight the Good™ fight.

    So I think the alignment analogy breaks down for the Dresden Files, is what I'm saying.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Kobold Cleaver wrote:
    Sundakan wrote:
    Evil beat evil and a source of good is destroyed...but if that new evil goes on to beat all the other evils and continues doing all the things that he was doing when he was a good guy, is it really a loss in the grand scheme?
    It is a tragic loss for the side of Blue. Orange gains a new pawn.

    Orange could be gaining a huuuuuuuuuge win Tuesday night! If Orange wins Tuesday, Orange could keep on winning until Orange gets sick and tired of winning! (Or until Blue defeats Orange).


    Ventnor wrote:
    HWalsh wrote:
    Karen Murphy destroyed the holy sword. That which was once Excalibur. Why? She acted out of the greater good. She was going to kill a surrendered enemy, Nicodemus, who was only surrendering to manipulate her into doing it. She cost the forces of Good™ one of their most powerful weapons because she did as you said.

    Actually, the Sword she destroyed was implied to be Kusanagi. Excalibur is still whole.

    And it doesn't matter that it got destroyed because it later got turned into a Holy lightsaber anyway, which was what God intended all along. Maybe. Probably. Who knows? Point is, by destroying that weapon, Karrin Murphy actually made it stronger. It took an insane series of coincidences for that powerup to occur.

    But then again, insane coincidences are implied to be the work of God, who may or may not exist, and if he does is totally cool loaning magic swords to Atheists who fight the Good™ fight.

    So I think the alignment analogy breaks down for the Dresden Files, is what I'm saying.

    I thought she broke Fid. Been a while I'll have to re-read.

    Nope. I was right, looked it up. She broke Fiddelachius not Kusenagi. Butters has Excalibur.

    Edit again. Nope you're right. I was getting Fiddelachius and Amorachius confused. So many GD different names for these swords.


    HWalsh wrote:
    TriOmegaZero wrote:
    HWalsh wrote:
    When you sacrifice your values YOU are no longer good.
    What if Evil sacrifices its values. Is that good?

    Not always.

    A Lawful Evil character who loses an honorable duel and then tries to backstabbing the hero under the guise of congratulating him is still evil.

    However a father who had walked a path of evil, following a code designed to only gain himmore and more power who sacrifices his life and power to save his son is quite good.

    This from the guy who didn't want talk about Star Wars?

    551 to 600 of 904 << first < prev | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Lost Omens Campaign Setting / General Discussion / Why Is Evil Being Good So Important To Some People... All Messageboards